“We are torn between nostalgia for the familiar and an urge for the foreign and strange. As often as not, we are homesick most for the places we have never known.”

—–

Carson Mccullers

=============

Well.

The number one challenge to progress & “living in the present” is old things.

Ok.

Not old things, per se, but how the idea of old things resides in our heads, hearts & minds.

For some reason old things have this incredible knack to not only gain value over time but also increase our hunger for them.

Sure.

Not all things.

Some old things suck, we know they suck and are glad to leave them in some scrap heap in the rear view mirror.

But the old things that didn’t suck?

Whew.

Memories and old things have an incredible magical way of shedding the bad and accumulating good.

Okay.

Maybe they don’t accumulate good but rather ‘basic familiarity’ or ‘low level contentment’ inevitably take on a disproportionately positive value.

They become slightly twisted totems that people are clearly drawn to and become touchstones of ‘when things were better.’

Shit.

“when things were better.”

Who wouldn’t have a hunger for that?

The problem is that I don’t think what most people realize, or maybe recognize, is that it is ideas and thinking which create the light that eliminates the darkness of the fear of the unknown, that new inevitably outshines old … and that nostalgia is best found, mostly, when you find new familiar things and new habits to replace them.

I, personally, have never really seen the allure of most old things. I love old buildings and love museums but, to me, they are simply way stations to new ideas, new thinking and new behavior.

To me the old seems muted and I desire to live loud & bold.

===========

“If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.”

–

Émile Zola

=================

All that said.

I understand the fact old things have a strange hunger to many people.

In fact.

I would argue that ‘old things’ is an equal opportunity employer.

What I mean by that is we far too often conflate the desire for old things, or holding on to what was old, with generations.

Old people hunger for old things and younger people hunger for new things.

This is simplistically misguided thinking.

When we do this we miss the bigger challenge old things place in front of us. Old things have an insatiable hunger for the human desire for familiarity and the desire for security that can be found within each and every one of us. That insatiable hunger sits in our stomachs and minds in a variety of ways and degrees depending on the individual … regardless of their age.

That hunger resides in older people AND younger people.

Ignoring that means ignoring some basic realities which can be quite costly as you make observations, decision and choices.

This is particularly true in business.

Look.

All of us, everyone, even the riskiest of risk takers like having some safety net.

Not all safety nets are created equal or look similar … but 99.9% of us seek some version of a safety net.

Old things tend to offer us that safety net.

I say that so when we start ridiculing someone, old or young, for appearing to hunger a little too much for old things that maybe we … well … stop ridiculing and start thinking about it a little.

Maybe all someone is doing is seeking their version of a safety net.

Maybe they are seeking something a little familiar and maybe something that offers a little mental security in a world which, frankly, seems to consistently try and demolish all that is familiar & secure.

As I noted when I wrote about ‘optimal newness’ we all desire, and like, some balance. We all find comfort in familiarity and some versions of nostalgia and find excitement in something new.

Old things have a strange hunger for the desire for some familiarity & some ‘secured clarity’ that resides in every single person.

As a studier of behaviors and attitudes I pay attention to this.

As a business guy I pay attention to this.

Old things have earned the right to be totems of times better and familiar.

We should allow them their hunger.

And, yet, as with almost everything in Life … we need to insure people, individuals, manage their diet in order to live healthy lives and have healthy professional careers.

As I just told a business leader last week who was expressing frustration with regard to how some employees were ‘holding on to old things with ragged claws’ … people aren’t nostalgic for old memories they are more nostalgic for familiarity & security.

If you can offer them the same with new things, old things lose their luster.

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better. Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect.

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.”

—–

Bruce McTague

=======================

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.”

And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note:<a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way.

These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new.

This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts.

This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important.

It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label.

And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects.

The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said.

I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle?

Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas.

This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation … which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s bullshit.

The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into.

I say that with two thoughts in mind:

something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway.

In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked.

This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this.

New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something.

I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it.

Conventions train us to do the conventional.

I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar.

All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.”

Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of.

The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless.

I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success.

I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness.’

That the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>.

Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard.

All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’ I get a lot of cocked heads as they think about it a little.

When I saw this quote I said … “yeah, there really always is a ‘but’ in today’s world.”

And I sat back and wondered why.

I have a theory.

‘Buts’ are created by the never ending “it’s your perspective versus someone else’s perspective” world.

Think about it.

What you see as normal looks maybe not exactly normal to someone else.

To you … your normal is a solid unequivocal fact … and you say so.

Uh oh.

You receive … “but.”

=================

“Normal is an illusion.

What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.”

―

Charles Addams

==================

This doesn’t mean your normal is abnormal or un-normal or even weird … it just receives a caveat from someone else. It receives a “but.”

To be clear.

This is significantly different than the infamous “yes, but” issue <what I call “but debating”>.

That suggests you are wrong.

This ‘but’ is simply a reflection that the world is imperfect <and you are doing just fine>. All this ‘but’ does is to suggest that we normal people normally view the world through so many different eyes … perfection is impossible and normal has a number of rich & royal hues to it depending on what eyes you view it with.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Sure.

That makes clarity between people and ‘alignment’ of people a little trickier.

But the truth is that if we don’t get too hung up on the ‘but’ aspects we all pretty much agree on the core normality of everyday life, what people think and what people do.

Ah.

And maybe that is where we run into trouble.

Not getting hung up on the ‘but.’

I cannot figure out if we, as people, just haven’t figured out how to accept two diametrically different thoughts – individuals are individuals <and we should celebrate that> versus things go a shitload more smoothly if we think and act a little more like each other.

Or.

If it is we conceptually understand that the world is imperfect and that people will not fit perfectly together with regard to beliefs & attitudes but that realistically we believe we have hammered out ‘normal’ in our own heads so well that we just think that the other people just have not rigorously hammered away on their own beliefs and thoughts enough to get to where we are.

Either way.

Both thoughts I just shared can only have one destination — a ‘but.’

I tend to believe I am a little unusual in that I like hearing a ‘but.’

I tend to believe most people would much rather that the other people just nod their heads wisely, agree or just say nothing, and everyone moves along happily unaware that there was actually a ‘but’ left unsaid.

Me?

A ‘but’ makes me cock my head a little.

Makes me think.

I like to think my view of normal has some chinks in it. Has some flaws. Some imperfections.

In other words.

My normal has some places that it can be improved.

I am not sure 90% of people like to think something like “normal” can be improved.

I mean … what the hell … normal is supposed to be normal, right?

Kind of some standard upon which 90% of people kind of stand on, right?

And you know what?

They are correct.

90% of normal truly is normal.

The ‘but’ resides in one of two places … in a crack within the 90% which actually may be improvable in some way <let’s call that the natural imperfections within normal> … or … in the 10% which represents the true individuality each of us represents.

Holy shit.

If you look at it that way … a ‘but’ doesn’t seem so frickin’ bad.

It kind of seems to make sense… not as aggravating.

Anyway.

That’s just my theory. And maybe that’s why I just don’t think a ‘but’ is that bad.

“Anxiety’s like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you very far.”

—-

Jodi Picoult

====================

“Anxiety is a thin stream of fear trickling through the mind. If encouraged, it cuts a channel into which all other thoughts are drained.”

—-

Arthur Somers Roche

=====================

“Its not stress that kills us, it is our reaction to it”.

—-

Hans Selye

========================

Well.

I have always recognized I live in a certain type of bubble.

For much of my career I have earned more than the average person.

For much of my career I walked the hallways of advertising and marketing companies who tend to focus more on “what’s next” and trends and adopting new ideas & thinking.

For much of my career I have traveled to parts of the world and worked with people who flew thousands of miles a year.

For much of my career I have wandered along the brink of the leading edge, or bleeding edge, of businesses and business thinking.

On the other hand.

I went to high school at a rural ‘farmer family student’ school.

My first job was in a small South Carolina city.

I have driven across America three times.

And I have worked in the Midwest heartland, Texas, blue collar part of Florida, the south and visited manufacturing plants in almost every state in the United States.

And maybe because of this odd mix I am an early adopter of ideas & new thoughts & thinking … and a late adopter of actually doing those things.

I think that shifts my stress and anxiety toward the actually doing and permits me to be anxiety free with regard to the actual encouragement of change.

Look.

I still outsource my presentations.

I still outsource my website management.

I still haven’t mastered my smartphone and I grudgingly add apps to my phone.

And, yet, I still enthusiastically present ideas on new trends, changes in cultural behavior, reform of institutions, embracing new technology and, in general, disruptive ideas to status quo type thinking.

That said.

I know I live in a certain type of bubble.

What I mean by that is I just read a really nice interview with Elaine Chao who runs the Department of Transportation in America which explained my bubble probably better than I have ever done myself.

==========

“I thought that he <Trump> had tapped into something, a strain of anxiety, of fear, of vulnerability that somehow nobody else did.”

—-

Elaine Chao

==========

She thinks that anxiety may have less to do with the economic impact of trade than about the crush of new technologies, adding that Silicon Valley has a responsibility to try to ameliorate those qualms.

Well.

How insightful is that?

In my bubble there is no crush of new technologies, or ideas, it is more about the excitement of sifting through “what’s next” attempting to discern the meaningless from the meaningful.

But she is correct.

This onslaught of new technology and new ideas happens in a bubble. And outside that bubble a lot of people feel alienated and marginalized and unconnected not because of money or culture … but rather by change and ‘newness.’

We, in this bubble of mine, get confused by this because this same group ,of marginalized and alienated people, have embraced the fringes of this technology surge – the smartphones, the apps and the social communities. All of those aspects thrive outside the bubble therefore we confuse it with a hunger for more new stuff and thinking and behavioral shifts.

Chao said something as a message to the tech industry … but it is actually more relevant to my bubble: “You take it as second nature, but for much of what you do, people do not understand.”

I am not naïve enough, nor egotistical enough, to believe my bubble is the most important thing in the world. But I do believe my bubble has the greater interests of society and progress embedded within its sometimes wacky machinery of ideation and practical outcomes.

Recognizing my bubble matters.

Recognizing my bubble matters because it is in my interest, and in the interest of new ideas and progress, to help those outside my bubble better understand where we are going with these ideas and why these ideas matter … and why these ideas are actually in their best interests.

I vividly remember presenting something to the CEO of a national company years ago and the CEO leaning forward at the end and saying “Bruce, I like the idea, I appreciate the idea, but I am not sure I want to be on the bleeding edge.”

How stupid am I to not think if a CEO of a national company would think & say that … that … well … a significant portion of America wouldn’t think and say exactly the same thing? <answer: pretty stupid>

Progress is good. And people, in general, love progress. But progress and some ideas my bubble generates can make people anxious. It doesn’t mean anyone is stupid, or slow, or backwards, or ignorant, or anything negative … they are simply anxious.

And when I read what she said it reminded me of a quote I had stored away:

===========

“If you gathered up all the fearful thoughts that exist in the mind of the average person, looked at them objectively, and tried to decide just how much good they provided that person, you would see that not some but all fearful thoughts are useless.

They do no good. Zero. They interfere with dreams, hopes, desire and progress.”

Richard Carlson

================

An anxious population can get angry.

They can get angry because anxiety interferes with dreams, hopes, desire and progress.

Well.

I think more people in my bubble need to remember this. And, maybe more importantly, more people in my bubble need to take steps to acknowledge this … and try and do something about this.

Ideas really just do not happen just because they are good ideas. To move an idea from inside the bubble to outside the bubble takes some hard work, some sharp think, some good articulation and a shitload of persistency.

To be clear on this bubble thing.

Not all bubbles are some generalized 100% thing.

Just because you may live in a city doesn’t mean you cannot understand rural poverty <because you can have your own poverty>.

Just because you have earned money doesn’t mean you cannot understand having no money <because “having earned” can quickly become “not earning”>.

But the bubble of ideas and thinking and innovation? That is as real as it can get. It’s not just about money or access … it is more about relatability and relevance to one’s life.

Standing in the hallways of some advertising agency discussing some new idea, or in some tech company in Austin, it is difficult to believe everyone wouldn’t understand that is something everyone should want … and to want to get “there” <wherever there is>.

===========

Stress is caused by being ‘here’ but wanting to be ‘there.’

Eckhart Tolle

============

Yeah.

I live in a bubble.

And it is good to be reminded that my bubble, which can look awesome standing inside it, can create a shitload of angst and anxiousness to those outside the bubble because inevitably they know I am gonna try and get them to do some of the things I think everyone should want to do <to get “there”> as part of natural progress.

“And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected.

And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual.

This is what I am and what I am about.”

——

John Steinbeck

=============

“when you follow two separate chains of thought you will find some point of intersection which should approximate to the truth.

–

Sherlock Holmes

========================

“Once to every person and nation come the moment to decide. In the conflict of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.”

—-

James Russell Lowell

============

“It takes courage to lead a life. Any life.”

—–

Erica Jong

================

Well.

Booing someone rather than debating is cowardly. It’s cowardly because that means you, not them, does not have the courage to defend your idea and thinking.

Okay.

Maybe cowardly is too harsh. It is definitely lazy and often cloaked in a multi layered cloth of frustration, anger & emotion.

Suffice it to say … both debating & thinking takes some courage in that it forces you to face some things that maybe you do not want to face <and change how and what you think>.

But debating takes even more courage because ideas, when let out into the open, are pretty helpless. They cannot live without some protection. This means whether you feel courageous or not, whether you feel competent in expressing your ideas let alone defending your ideas, you step up to the plate and take some swings.

The cowardly way is to simply sit back and enjoy the comfort of the unsaid opinion & idea.

Okay.

It is even more cowardly to simply boo or shout down someone who not only wants to share their thinking & ideas but one who is willing to listen, debate & discuss your ideas and thinking.

It is even slightly cowardly to simply rely on ‘groupthink’ <which, by the way, is different than being a sheep and following the crowd>.

Anyway.

I had the fortune to go to graduate school with a case study driven curriculum.

We didn’t follow some syllabus with textbooks and lesson plans … we debated business cases. We quickly learned that cause & effect is rare, solutions are rarely simple and that “one right answer” was the rarest animal of all.

But this was learned by listening and debating and discussing <with some random shouting included>.

We quickly discovered that the glib one-liners <or tweets> actually made little ripple on the surface of the discussion.

Words were demanded by the idea itself to ‘lead’. That means you were demanded to deliver words being in front of your idea, pointing to a direction, saying ‘this way’ and using words to step out into the unknown of a debate in which you knew, at best, your idea was but one of the ‘right answers & solutions.’

You find out quickly … too quickly in fact … theory, it seems, is always easier than practice.

And that is what an idea that remains in your head unspoken is … simply a theory.

If it cannot stand the gauntlet of debate & discussion it remains simply a theory <or opinion> you have and will never go into practice. I believe it was Harry Eckstein <Case Study and Theory in Political Science 1975> who stated that case studies “are valuable at all stages of the theory-building process, but most valuable at that stage of theory building where least value is generally attached to them: the stage at which candidate theories are tested.”

=======

“Censorship is an almost irresistible impulse when you know you are right.

But when we look back at all that used to be seen as the truth, we know that we must keep a free market of ideas open.

The best test of truth is the ability to get accepted in the market.”

–

Oliver Wendell Holmes Supreme Court Justice

==============

Freedom of the mind to go in any direction is one of the greatest gifts humankind has been given.

Booing is actually the cowardly form of censorship of ideas … a lazy way of curbing the freedom of the mind.

And, maybe worse, booing someone is a cowardly way of actually caging the mind from exploring new directions.

I will admit.

Booing and shouting someone down and not listening seems weird to me. Weird in that half the battle in Life is simply showing up. So you have shown up <which puts you ahead of a shitload of people> and then you choose to simply show dissatisfaction and offer no solutions … or listen to offered solutions.

Yeah.

I know what I am suggesting isn’t always easy. And that is where courage steps in.

Freedom of mind means leaving what you think behind for a while. It doesn’t mean you can’t ‘come home’ again … but

We live in a weird world these days … alternatively dominated by groupthink and, alternatively, individual opinions are as important as facts, it is a weird world in which feelings seem more important that facts.

In this weird world of ours it is becoming almost impossible to stand against what feels like and inevitable tide and when you do try you can expect a strong wave of cynicism, sarcasm & … well … screaming.

In this weird world of ours if you truly do think for yourself and break free of the herd to think independently about a subject of great importance to you and to the greater world you are demanded to do something other than ‘boo’ or show up and shout.

Okay.

That last one isn’t weird.

In fact.

It is what normal people do with good normal ideas when they disagree with someone who has an idea you may not agree with.

Regardless.

I imagine it takes some moral courage to not just boo. And you have to have some courage to understand that it is less important whether you are right or wrong … what matters is that you stand up and challenged what you most likely see as misguided institutionalized groupthink.

=====================

“I realize that if you ask people to account for facts they usually spend more time finding reasons for them than finding out whether they are true.

They skip over facts but carefully deduce inferences.

They normally begin thus: “how does this come about?”

But does it so?

That is what they ought to be asking.”

–

Montaigne

===============

Sigh.

So.

I don’t agree with many things going in in the world today and I certainly don’t agree with many things the Trump administration is suggesting they will do.

But if I am going to express my discomfort in their ideas I want to hear their discomfort in my ideas. And while I am under no illusion that we will end up comfortable in some place … I do find comfort in the belief the discourse is more likely to produce a good result then simply shouting or booing.

=================

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

John F. Kennedy

=============

Look.

I love the fact that people are showing up and speaking out.

And I absolutely understand that many of us are scared to have the debate & discussion because we fear losing that discussion and there is a shitload at risk.

And I absolutely understand that “there are few things more destructive than an unsound idea persuasively expressed” <Bill Bernbach>.

So you know what?

Keep showing up.

Keep expressing your discomfort with ideas you are hearing.

But find a spokesperson.

Find someone you trust to express your ideas & your thinking better than you can. And have that person open the debate. Words matter and words used well matter.

Shouting is not only cowardly but, even worse, it cheats words from being able to matter.

Shouting and booing is almost as destructive to a good idea as silence.

Please.

Please stop shouting.

Please.

Please stop booing.

Please.

Please stop not … well … not talking.

The only way out of the weird place it seems like the world is in these days is to talk our way out of it <and beget some doing we can agree on>.

Booing & shouting is not only not productive it is only going to hurt our ears as it only echoes in the hole we are all in … and doesn’t offer us any way out of the fucking hole.

The only way out of any hole is to embrace our god-given gift of the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected.

“Whoooo OK,” said Clinton <with a fun little shimmy> when Trump’s rambling came to an abrupt end.

=====

I wasn’t going to comment on the first presidential debate but it was so bizarre I couldn’t stop myself. When Clinton went “whooooo, ok” it summarized exactly what I felt.

Trump gave some answers where I would not even now where I would start to address. I am fairly sure she wasn’t sure where to start. He sometimes offered a word salad of opinions, semi truths, rambling nothings and likeable fantasy.

To me … this was the 1st interview in a 3 interview process for the biggest job in the world.

Well.

I have to admit. Watching last night I was not sure they were interviewing for the same job.

Heck.

I am not even sure Trump knew it was an interview.

While I could comment on a variety of absurd things to happen and words said … in the end … I was just stunned by the lack of preparedness by Trump.

It created an odd dynamic where one used logic, experience and reasonableness was being measured against semi-logic, obvious lack of experience and unreasonable, unapologetic, fantasy.

Was Clinton dismissive & smug and maybe even a little condescending to her opponent? Yup. And I would have been too. I will compete with anyone but I want to compete as a peer and on substance. If you cannot grasp the substance then do not waste my time nor the people watching.

Personally, I felt like she believed Trump was cheating all of America, even his own voters, by his lack of preparedness <that even they deserved better>.

I do not fool myself into believing Clinton “beat” Trump with his own supporters.

In fact.

I had to dig down into maybe page 4 of the comments under a debate review article to find what I was looking for … a recap of a Trump supporter which reflects what a certain % saw watching the debate.

Do I agree with it? well, yes, parts of it.

Do I believe it justifies the “Trump interview for the job” ? No. But. It is certainly what a % of America saw and felt:

What people saw was a better prepared and more ambitious Clinton: an A student who memorized her part, but did not have an independent thought. They witnessed a debate between a private man (an outsider) and a political operator; a businessman who is prepared to admit that business can be dirty, and a politician who thinks that she is holy (even if she has committed war crimes in Libya) and has never made a mistake; a debate between a man who means what he says (even if he is wrong), and a woman who uses language as a means to an end; a woman who mouths liberal slogans, and does the opposite.

They saw a arrogant woman, a political aristocrat, who thinks that she deserves to be the president.

He was unprepared and clearly showed his lack of understanding for the complexity of the job.

To me … the debate was, for the most part, a stripped Trump showing us a blatant lack of knowledge and an aggravating casual approach to the biggest moment of the campaign.

I imagine that if your expectations were that he actually show up … he met them.

Past that he was useless other than his statements that America has problems that need to be solved <we all know that> and that he has some problems he needs to solve <he may not know that>.

Ok.

That was harsh.

What I meant to say is that he has an inability to coalesce the random logical bits of his thinking into some semblance of a real thought. Shit. I could sell his thinking to the American public better than he can <imagine if he said, when asked about how to keep jobs in America, he said: I would lower business taxes to make it more lucrative to stay, I would reduce regulations to make it easier to stay and raise import taxes on those who do elect to leave to make it less appealing to leave.” Those are all Trump points but actually offered in a meaningful way>.

And, by the way, even with all of his unpreparedness I do believe there is a large cohort of potential voters who will stand by him.

And I just had a debate with regard to why this morning.

Someone told me that it is a reflection of the ‘dumbing down of America’ <not grasping what it takes to be a president>. I do not agree. I believe we are just as dumb … and as smart … as we have always been <although now we have the web to share it all with everyone>.

As I have stated before … I believe being an expert and the importance of being experienced has been dumbed down. I have said it before and I will say it again … when you believe you can do a job as well as anyone else then even the guy at the corner of the bar becomes a possible candidate for even the most complex leadership position.

And a large swath of America may not actually believe that … but they feel it strong enough to jump on board the Trump train.

As a corollary to that … those who DO believe that … well … will find Clinton’s competence & qualification irrelevant … and of no meaningful value.

If no one is an expert anyone can be an expert.

All I know is that words do matter and a solid rational approach is at the core of any presidency. I may want change. And you may want change. But change management is best led by a calm hand, some steady logic and more than some vague “eliminate bad” without suggesting what the actual good would be that replaces it.

====

Understanding that “politics is the art of the possible” is not an invitation to subordinate principles to expediency, but a reflection of the moral wisdom that the highest principle in government is to make things better.”

When you don’t have actual answers, exaggerate the problems with fear & hatred in order to blind people with emotion.

—-

Gary Kasporov

===============

Once to every man and nation

Comes the moment to decide

In the strife of truth with falsehood

For the good or evil side.

New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,

They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong

–

James R. Lowell

============================

Obama

“We’re not going to make good decisions based on fears that don’t have a basis in fact, and that, I think, is something I hope all Americans pay attention to.”

<The Contrast: Pocketful of Fear song>

Ok.

This is about the upcoming presidential debate.

Let me be clear.

Fear will be on center stage at both podiums on Monday night.

Let me explain.

The president recently suggested that this year’s ballot is fear versus hope. I may haggle with him a little over his choice of words which followed that thought but I do agree that one candidate is clearly encouraging fear as a motivating force to vote for him <Trump>.

But I also believe the other candidate <Clinton> is clearly encouraging fear as a motivating force to vote against him <Trump>.

Therefore, fear resides at the foundation of this election. Well. At least until now.

The fear Trump should have is that of he drives his dystopian view of who and what America is so far down into some wretched dark hole that people will only see darkness … and enough people will sit up, look around or out the window and say “shit, it isn’t that bad or dark.”

The fear Clinton should have is that by creating such a clownish caricature of her opponent everyone forgets she is not simply trying to become the ringleader of a circus.

Regardless.

Using fear is short term effective but long term stupid. Management people, coaches and generals have debated this topic forever – fear as a motivator.

Well.

It is not. At least as a sustainable motivator. Fear does not inspire loyalty or genuine commitment. It simply inspires a burst of action. And both candidates have been playing the fear card for so long that it has almost reached its ‘sell by’ date.

But. It worked short term. I say that because PewResearch suggests something like 65+% of Americans feel, in some degree, that America is not going in the right direction. This can vary from a subtle sense to an uneasy feeling to outright ‘sense of disaster. And while I pointed out not too long ago that this % isn’t as far off what we normally feel I will agree that America is not running on all cylinders and I believe that this creates an underlying sense of discomfort with the status quo.

But I will argue, again and again, it is not a disaster … we are not on some steady decline … and that the people of the country are not divided by some hatred for each other.

Therefore … that dissatisfaction or discomfort left alone is most likely just an aggravating feeling people have.

It doesn’t become true fear unless someone comes along and encourages discomfort to blossom into full outright anger <or fear of what is happening in the present>.

That discomfort is what Trump has been poking and prodding at encouraging everyone to think of mild discomfort as symptoms of a mortal disease.

It creates fear. And then the fear becomes … well … real. And more often than not … it is as intangibly tangible as hope.

Trump trumpets his version of fear by describing in concrete terms the threats, real & perceived, Americans face. But his true fear ‘play’ resides in something vague and not the concrete.

He plays into that underlying sense of discomfort I mentioned with concrete <if not actually true> examples and then immediately disassociates any blame or responsibility from the people <it ain’t you … it cannot be because you are hardworking common sense people> but rather flings the blame toward some vague ‘anyone and everyone else’ <media, democrats, establishment, institutions, foreigners, immigrants, government – including republicans, basically anyone but him>.

He dials up fear with regard to Muslim terrorism <although research shows that 80% of domestic terrorism is non Muslim>.

He dials up fear of violent crime <although research shows that crime & violence is at an all time low>.

He dials up such a vague fear that … well … people cannot even name their fear:

—

What, exactly, was she afraid of? She couldn’t say, and that was perhaps the most frightening thing of all.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” said a Trump supporter.

—

Trump channels all this rampant fear into his vague protective blanket promise of protection, toughness, solutions and strength.

Basically he raises people’s fear and then offers himself as the only solution to their fear.

——-

Frightened people come to Trump for reassurance, and he promises to make them feel safe. “I’m scared,” a 12-year-old girl told the candidate at a rally in North Carolina in December. “What are you going to do to protect this country?”

I watched him do it at the Republican convention … but I just cannot see how it works on a national debate stage.

Regardless, simplistically, Trump is a master … okay … his whole gestalt … is all about building up the whole belief in fear by also preying on this morbid dystopian view of the current state of America:

Donald Trump has told the nation we are in a national crisis of “poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad.”

What the hell … he has told everyone they have never had it worse <scratching my chin … and , yet, but it doesn’t seem like he has had it worse … hmmmmmmmmmmm>.

I just do not see how his works on a national debate stage.

To be clear.

There is a significant if not exponential difference between “not doing as well as we could be” and … well … what Trump outlines … “a shithole.”

He has creatively crafted a dark vision of the current America so much so that … well … I wouldn’t want to live in it if I believed it was true.

And he is doing this strategically and with such bombast and absurd depth & breadth that reality and facts proving he is so far off base … well … look off base themselves.

And that is where I believe the core of the debate resides.

Dystopian shithole versus work in progress.

And this is where I believe the character of a leader comes forth.

You have a choice.

Tap into the fear <and even exaggerate it to a sense of semi-hysteria> to motivate desired behavior. Find the bad … exaggerate its depth & breadth … and make the problem so big that anyone offering a solution looks attractive. Point out the worst version of reality.

What I mean by this is that research shows that fear drives us to focus on our Reptilian brain . This means survival mode kicks in and fear encourages us to believe the Reptilian aspect of how we think is all that matters <to the exclusion of everything else>. Everyone should note the Reptilian brain eventually is overshadowed by the rest of the brain.

Tap into hope <for something better>. Find the good … explain its depth & breadth. Acknowledge, be realistic and provide perspective of existing problems. Point out the best version of reality, ourselves and emphasize ‘what can be in the future’ is attainable.

Hope actually expands us. Instead of hardening us it firmly places us in a more ‘possibilities’

Hope focuses on possibilities. This translates into not just ‘new ways of doing things’ behavior but actual ‘doing’ behavior.

Look.

I do not believe you can terrify anyone into supporting you.

And this cuts both ways.

I don’t believe Trump can create enough terror in our current existence to get enough people to support him.

I don’t believe Clinton can create enough terror in … well … Trump … to get enough people to support her.

At some point someone has to articulate a better vision for America … with some concreteness for people to stand firm upon and pull the level for that better America.

If Clinton plays that card well … she wins. And wins big.

2/3rds of Hillary Clinton supporters think the next generation will be in better shape than we are today, or least the same, according to Pew Research. The reverse is true for Trump supporters. 70% of Clinton voters are voting for her because they believe she is the most qualified competent candidate. Almost 50% of Trump voters are voting for him because they dislike Clinton <this came from one of the 1000 polls you can find>.

Almost 70% of Trump supporters think the next generation will be worse off.

In addition … a significant majority of Trump supporters say life is worse today for people like them than it was 50 years ago.

As for undecideds? They are hesitant to follow status quo but are optimistic for a better America if given the right leader.

I say all this to come back to fear. To me … it is just another example of why I question Trump’s business acumen. Any business manager or leader worth half a shit knows that fear is unsustainable. When it wears off there is … well … nothing. Fear heightens a sense of urgency and a sense of ‘doing’ <maybe not the smartest doing but lots of doing> but all the ‘doing’ urges diminish once the urgency is over.

Trump is playing for the win and not worrying about what happens afterwards.

That is a multidimensional sign of a shitty business leader.

One would think, at least I would, that if Trump truly believed in this dystopian America he describes day in and day out that he would have a clear and detailed solution.

Sigh.

But he does not. He is empty but for words of fear <and I just do not see that playing well in a debate>.

On the other hand.

Hope is sustained by the successes gained. It fills not diminishes behavior.

===========

“Despair is anger with no place to go.”

—

The Neurotic’s Notebook, 1960

=====

And even Trump supporters would prefer to be filled with something other than fear & anger.

Think about this carefully. Most people do want to turn back the clock … but not the way we sometimes think and discuss it.

They want to go back to having good-paying jobs.

They want to go back to being proud of themselves and proud of their community and proud of their country.

They want to go back to producing something that is the standard of the world and be productive.

And, mostly, they want to go back to a “we” mentality rather than feeling like it is always ‘me against everybody.’

They want hope and they want someone to be a flag bearer for their hope.

The podium on the debate stage that offers that wins big.

“It is of small importance to any of us whether we get liberty; but of the greatest that we deserve it.

Whether we can win it, fate must determine; but that we will be worthy of it we may ourselves determine; and the sorrowfullest fate of all that we can suffer is to have it without deserving it.”

<1905 Evolution of Expression>

And this is where numbers and facts do not really matter.

The reality of the United States today is that it has emerged from the great recession of 2009 better than any of the world’s major economies.

It has produced more than 14 million jobs since 2010 which is more than the 35 other advanced economies combined.

Auto sales when Barack Obama took office were 9.6 million on an annualized basis. Last month, they reached 16.6 million.

Over the last eight years, America has become the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, overtaking Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Unemployment is now below 5%.

Those are facts. That is reality. OH. Yeah. That is meaningless.

People want the hope.

They want the pride <of self and country>.

They want some optimism that the future will be better.

Whoever can shed the fear … will win.

As Obama said … “Well, we do have challenges, but we’re not stupid.”

Fear will not win because it is not sustainable … and we are not stupid. We all want freedom to be who we are, be what we are capable of and do what we are capable of. And nowhere in freedom … and I mean nowhere … is fear.

Fear will step up to both podiums on debate night but the winner will walk away having shed fear and waving a flag of hope.

I just think we all want a better America … and we do not need fear to convince us of that.

================

“… what we call freedom … it is necessary to determine the justice or injustice of this phrase.

Try to draw a circle with the ‘free’ hand, and with a single line. You cannot do it of your hand trembles, nor if it hesitates, nor if it is unmanageable, nor if it is in the common sense of the word ‘free.’ So far from being free, it must be under control as absolute and accurate as if it were fastened to an inflexible bar of steel.

And yet it must move, under this necessary control, with perfect, untormented serenity of ease.”

“The number-one way people today find out about things is they look for people they trust.”

=========

Steve Majoros

————————–

“You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you do not trust enough.”

==========

Frank Crane

—————————

“Trust nobody?

That is the plight of fools and cowards.

You will slowly suffocate with every breath you take.

To trust is to live.”

===========

Bruce McTague

—————————-

Well.

Let me say, as a comment about the first quote I used, there are a shitload of people wandering aimlessly searching for someone and something to trust these days.

Turn on the television these days and all you hear about is ‘low trust scores’ with regard to presidential candidates. What the TV blabber jabbers neglect to tell you is that … well … finding a good trust score for anyone these days is next to impossible. We have a trust crisis with regard to everything <just check out how low the trust score doctors have for gods sake>.

And, yet, I see once again that MillwardBrown is still cranking out their massive TrustR research study <which is continuously pointing out these days that the relationship between “trust” and “any brand” is tenuous at best>.

Oh.

And once again … I wanted to say ‘thank you Millward Brown’, or any large research organization, that issues research studies with summaries that says lots of nothing <nothing meaning … well … that they are non usable … unless someone tells you what is meaningful>.

Oh.

And thank you big research for reminding me that trust is a topic fraught with peril in today’s world <for brands and for people>.

Ok.

To the research itself.

Says a lot of “nothing” may be an overstatement.

Maybe it’s just the research company deciding to say nothing because … well … then they cannot be judged against anything.

But here is the real shame of most of these larger well done research studies. The research really does contain a boatload of gems if you have the time and guts to mine them.

So.

With that said. Millward Brown issues a “TrustR” research study which shows the most trusted brands in the world.

First.

Let me say.

Millward and Yankelovich <now FutureTrends> are companies who are awesome at conducting massive research studies that contain so much information no one knows what to do with them.

Second.

The good news for me, I admit, is that because of them I have been able to make a pretty good living grabbing these monoliths of hieroglyphics and translating them into useful tidbits of actionable insights <so for that I thank them>.

And this study is just one more example.

Third.

I will admit … Millward has evolved on their TrustR research study.

Initially it was all about trust. Trust was the ‘be all and end all’ … the holy grail for a brand <which is frankly kind of silly not just for brands but for anything>. They now recognize that … well … no one trusts anyone or anything anymore and therefore have come around in analyzing reliability & competency as the underpinnings to establishing a ‘trust relationship.’

Their research study is a humdinger. The research study teases you with all this trust stuff. And I am not sure what they really want us to do with it. Some brand manager is going to run off and start saying “because they trust us, hey, let’s go endorse this and that and expand the brand” … and … well … there will go the trust.

Back in 2009 Millward Brown said this about Amazon:

“Amazon.com, the brand ranked first in the U.S. by TrustR, has achieved that status through exceptional service and providing its own recommendations to users. This combination has made Amazon the gold standard of trust and recommendation in the U.S.”

So.

What the heck does Amazon do with that piece of information?

So.

What the heck do other organizations do with that piece of information?

So.

What the heck do I do with that piece of information?

Although.

I will tell you that Amazon is typically so good at their “other things you may like” recommendations that when they do get it wrong it is pretty funny. The following is an excerpt on this topic from a blog writer I love:

===

So. I am looking at these wonderful picture of this HUGE wine glass that holds an ENTIRE BOTTLE OF WINE and I’m scrolling through the page and I see the section where they try to get you to buy corresponding shit by being all, “customers who bought this item also bought…” and then listing things that would complement a big giant wine glass. Except instead of normal shit like a corkscrew or a wine rack or a one way do-not-pass-go ticket to AA, Amazon is all, “Customers who bought this item also bought Boston Legal: Season 3” and I’m like, “Wait, what?” and Amazon is all, “Customers who bought this item also bought the Omron Body Fat Monitor and Scale” and I’m thinking okay, I can maybe understand drinking an entire bottle/glass/bottle glass of wine while watching a season of fake legal drama on DVD, but if I’m going to drink an entire bottle of wine, and I’m going to do it regularly enough to justify purchasing a glass for this specific purchase, you can probably just assume that I never even weigh myself on a regular scale and therefore have zero need to know what my body fat percentage is after I’ve been able to consume an entire bottle of wine without even exerting the tiny amount of energy required to, you know, STAND UP AND REFILL A WINE GLASS.

But Amazon is a persistent and snarky little whore and was all, “Fine, customers who bought this item also bought Oxo Good Grips Locking Tongs with Nylon Heads. And a Neiko Super-Bright 9 LED Heavy-Duty Compact Aluminum Flashlight in Gunmetal. And the 5th edition of a book called Plain English for Lawyers.”

===

As you can see.

When they get it wrong it is pretty funny.

Anyway.

Back to the research.

All the research truly says is “hey <whatever company or brand listed> I trust you to do what you say you are going to do”.

Uhm.

That actually translates into “the basic cost of entry of any product or service asking to be purchased.”

What a sad world we are in that some brand can be rated high on some trust scale simply because they are doing what they are supposed to do <note: I will come back to this thought later when I talk about our trust crisis>.

Anyway.

I am relatively sure deep down maybe in page 222 or 471 there will be something that points out “hey, if you are really good at this then you must know <this>.”

Here is the deal.

Identifying that last little ‘this’ is the little thing you can take to the bank.

It is in understanding, or knowing, that little factoid which jumpstarts the true understanding of how to expand the company/brand’s respect <or trust> base. Of course, that assumes you want to expand at some point <because not everyone does>.

New products, innovations and alliances begin to become borne from that random page.

But big research companies don’t tell you that.

They don’t because, well, then they become accountable. They would rather gives you gobs and gobs of information and provide some broad sweeping conclusions <typically around five of them> and get out of town.

Big research has one sole purpose … to be beget more big research. And because of that it doesn’t pay them to hang their ass out over some edge making a clear recommendation <they leave that to people like me>

Now.

In this particular study they hide the real reason someone gets trusted.

Reliability.

I believe somewhere on page four of the research summary, after blabbing about trust or something, they randomly toss out:

“Trust is a state of deep belief and assurance. On its most basic level is about absolute reliability … gives us the stability and predictability we require for daily living.”

Reliability.

Yes.

A functional attribute.

Reliability in doing what you say you are going to do.

Consistency.

Time after time.

That is where the trust comes from. I would have liked this study better if they had listed most trusted and then what they were most trusted <what people deemed they were most reliable at> for. And I admit. I am not sure I would be happy with “Toyota provides best value car” as an answer <especially if I was Toyota and paying money for the study>. But maybe that part comes if you pay them gobs of money to see the tabbed information.

All that said.

Millward claims that with this “TrustR” score these companies have this going for them:

The brand customer bond is 10 times greater than the average brand customer bond.

The brand is 7 times more likely to be purchased

The brand shows a high likelihood of short term growth.

Yikes.

If I were on this list I would be tempted to not only get a big head I think I would head out a little early in the day and hit happy hour somewhere.

But I imagine my main point here is that if someone is not savvy enough in the company to realize that it is their competency & reliability which enables the “what they have going for them” benefits they may start focusing solely on ‘trust.’ Uhm. And that would be bad long term.

I admit.

I sometimes seem to struggle when trying to articulate my aggravation with the typical large research study. It’s easy to point to the lack of a specific “here is what you should do” and the fact that many companies fund these studies to hide from having to make decisions on their own <just my opinion>. But I finally found a thought to capture my aggravation:

Data, information and learnings are distinctly different things.

Similar to the confusion between strategy, objective and tactics <and I believe I personally am only clear on tactics versus the other two> this whole data versus information versus learnings <and ultimately actions> is confusing. And I believe large research studies with the honorable intention of showing value for dollars and time invested “go for the show” and things start going “wibbly wobbly” <excellent phrase>.

Hey.

After sitting through some of the most arid research presentations in the world I am not opposed to some “show” but it’s possible we have gone too far. We end up slipping into sound bites which are confused as learnings versus information … and then managers/leaders/business decision makers with little time <or possibly just looking for the quick answer> take the sound bite off into the sunset.

Anyway.

Let me end with some thoughts on trust in general.

Because I believe Trust is no longer a viable measure of … well … anything.

I am sure we people have always been cynical with regard to who and what we trust but I would suggest that the larger deeper recessions we have faced off & on since 2001 or so have steadily chipped away at trust.

You don’t have to look too far back to remember when banks, bankers and business leaders could do little wrong, were relative role models of success & leadership and often seen as the trusted sage advisors to troubleshooter societal issues. The larger effect of the financial crisis was to undermine … well … trust. And while one would think it would have just eroded financial leadership trust I would point out that when one bedrock component is shown to be made of sand … well … you start challenging all supposed bedrock.

It all marked the beginnings of a wider trust crisis.

But this is solvable. And it is not solvable by running around like a fucking chicken with its head cut off trying to answer “how do we get people to trust us.”

Reliability. Competency. Consistency.

While I noted much earlier that it is sad that people associate ‘trust’ with ‘doing what you said you would do’ <which kind of seems like the lowest of bars> … well … it is what it is. It is the world we currently live in.

I, personally, wouldn’t even look at trust scores. I imagine I wouldn’t because it would just be too fucking depressing. Even if you are honest, straight shooter and high integrity you are most likely going to be viewing a relatively cynical opinion of who and what you are. I would focus on competency, reliability & consistency scores.

Yeah.

Some research guru will most likely state they are all associated … but I would disagree.

In today’s world the gut response is ‘do not trust.’

And, yet, when mined for specifics and detail those exact same people will offer the head scratching input of high positive reliability & competency.

If I were a brand, a company or even a presidential candidate … I would take that advice and run with it … and would most likely be pretty successful in the end <even if I continue to be stuck with a crappy trust score>.

Anyway.

Two concluding thoughts.

Large research studies.

Data, information and learnings leading to real actions. I just don’t see it when I see these studies. More often the flashy sound bites. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground.

I heard author Brad Meltzer being interviewed on the radio the other morning and he said this quote.

In a larger context he was stating that narrative is driven by ‘the winner’ <or by whomever is actually driving the narrative> and that there is almost always a different context from which information can be delivered.

The comment resonated with me because … well … sometimes it feels like there is some big conspiracy upon us.

Well.

At least it sounds like we are officially in the conspiracy era in that apparently there is some grand conspiracy upon us.

What do I mean?

Pick a topic … any topic … globalization … the system in general … voting … financial … big business … climate science … government … whatever … and you will find a fairly large percentage of people who will unequivocally state that whatever it is … is … well … rigged in some way.

And the biggest “rigged” component is that no matter the topic there is some small group of people directing whatever it is that is being directed <including what we think>.

And that small group underneath the ‘topic du jour’ always has some evil nefarious intent.

This conspiracy mindset has some fairly consequential … well … negative consequences.

It seems that nothing is simple.

It seems like nothing is at it appears.

It seems like nothing is … well … as it really is.

It creates some odd scenarios.

You can be winning and, yet, not really be winning.

You can be telling the truth and, yet, not be telling the truth.

You can be doing the right thing and, yet, not be doing the right thing.

Suffice it to say that there is a massive thread of conspiracy weaving its way through cultural thinking. And it is not all crazy tinfoil hat, sitting in the basement typing on some 15 year old computer crackpot type batshit crazy thinking. It is just a consistent thread of ‘rigged’ or ‘conspiracy’ undermining all that is.

And that … that … well … that is disturbing.

Some would argue this is lack of faith in the system and infrastructure and leadership. Maybe even a lack of trust. I will not <albeit I could>.

What is most concerning is … well … us … the people.

The fact that despite facts … despite some overriding truths … the majority <over 50%> of a population actually believe there is some larger conspiracy conspiring against their will & wishes.

This is an issue.

A real attitudinal issue.

This suggests society in general is fundamentally corrupt.

Maybe worse?

This suggests we, the people, fundamentally think everyone is corruptible.

Now.

What really doesn’t help things is when LEADERS are saying everything is rigged or suggests everyone is corrupt or states that lying & lies is the underpinning of everything that currently exists.

This then makes everything unreliable and everything possibly unfair, biased or rigged in some way.

This then incites people into not only believing the general overarching conspiracy but inspires people to rebel against the larger institution <whether that institution is actually at fault or not because in their eyes ALL institutions bear the corruption/rigged mantle>.

All.

Everything.

Yes.

This means that everything becomes ‘debatable.’

If something is positive for someone you don’t personally like or agree with … well … it can only be positive because the system is rigged.

If something is negative for someone you personally like and agree with … well … it can only be the system is trying to hold them back or down.

If something is 99% agreed upon & proven, the 1% represents the fact that the system is trying to propagandize a misperception.

“It’s all a sham.”

“It’s all a conspiracy.”

Well.

This is crazy.

Fucking nuts.

Can existing institutions and systems run more effectively and equally for all?

Sure. Absolutely.

Are all existing institutions and systems corrupt?

No. Absolutely not.

Are some of the existing institution and system people corrupt?

Sure. Absolutely.

Are all people in existing institutions and systems corruptible?

No. Absolutely not.

Is there some conspiracy to be found in everything? Of course not.

Everyone likes a good conspiracy theory … they are kind of fun to think about … but seriously?

I mean as in seriously believe the entire world, and everything in it, could so simply be manipulated?

Please.

Please take off your tinfoil hat and come up out of the basement.

Regardless.

Setting the grand conspiracy on to the crackpot shelf let me come back to the root of the whole cultural trust mess.

Information is imperfect.

Narratives are called narratives for a reason. There is a teller and a receiver.

A teller will tell the narrative from their frame of reference and based on what they know. The information may be good, maybe great, but it is imperfect.

A receiver accepts the information through their own imperfect information filter.

And as all this happens we filter it all through our heads and, as imperfections tend to do, they stand out a little differently than the perfect narrative. We latch on to those imperfections and turn the spotlight on them and in the glare of blinding light even the imperfections of the imperfect come out.

Call this the double imperfect syndrome.

Ok.

Don’t.

Just call it imperfection in information and just like jagged edges of anything they catch on the minds of some people and are pulled & tugged at seeking to unravel the greater whole.

And therein lies the roots of conspiracies.

Conspiracies thrive on the little imperfections in the ripples of Life and information.

And, in today’s world, where imperfections get amplified on the internet, conspiracies have a never ending flow of fertilizer.

Sigh.

Here is what I know for sure.

Meltzer is 100% correct.

Information is never 100% perfect.

Information is imperfect.

And imperfect information feeds conspiracy theorists.

In fact … imperfect information is like meat to a starving carnivore.

I am also sure there is no grand conspiracy which would suggest that there is some conspiracy threaded throughout just about everything in the world. That would be … well … beyond the scope of inevitability. In addition, conspiracy theories, in general, are just that … theories.

At some point you really have only one of two choices with regard to the world:

Everything is rigged.

Or

Everything isn’t really rigged.

And whichever you choose has repercussion with regard to how you live your life and how you view your life.

And choose wisely.

For if you choose the former you absolve yourself pretty much of personal responsibility and … well … master of your own destiny. You pretty much have just agreed to let the world dictate your Life <no matter how anger in the former you invest in>.

And if you choose the latter … well … you pretty much accept the world as it is and forge ahead.

Yeah.

Just think about that a little the next time you get all hot and bothered over how ‘rigged’ the syste is or when you start embracing some conspiracy theory.

Me?

Sign me up for choice 2.

I don’t really care if conspiracy theories are … well … theories … or some derivative of some actual truth.

I will never put on some tinfoil hat <because I would look stupid in it> and … well … I refuse to believe my efforts won’t matter, what I want doesn’t matter and that there isn’t some opportunity out there that is not only within my grasp or available to me.